MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210695397

Aboriginal Resource and Subsistence Rights after Delgamuukw and Marshall

2004· article· en· W2210695397 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureJurisprudenceSupreme courtPolitical scienceLawTreatySociologyResource (disambiguation)GeographyArchaeologyAgriculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the 1997 and 1999 decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) regarding Aboriginal peoples’ access to resources: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, which set out basic principles surrounding Aboriginal title, and R. v. and Marshall, which dealt with access to resources in relation to a treaty right to trade. It then explores these decisions, examining the consequences of their pronouncements for the abilities of Aboriginal peoples to further their varied interests in resources. It starts with the law set out in seminal cases (Sparrow; Van der Peet, and Gladstone) from 1990 to 1996 and explores the impact of Delgamuukw and Marshall on this jurisprudence. Analysis begins with the establishment of a conceptual framework constructed around the various sorts of interests an Aboriginal community might have in gaining greater access to resources. The discussion concludes with an analysis of the implications of the SCC for satisfying these compartmentalized interests, and a consideration of possible strategies that have potential to move Aboriginal communities toward their greater satisfaction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawFrench-language works237,207